There are a lot of “Shit X Says” communities now, which inevitably leads to quite a few cross-posts and makes people less likely to see others’ comments (e.g. someone comments on a “Shit Liberals Say” post, someone else on the “Shit Fascists Say” version of the post, etc.). It might be a good idea to just have one “Shit Reactionaries Say” community, either by creating a new one or by repurposing the most popular one (SLS), and then setting the other communities to only allow mod posts (basically read-only).
Thank you for coming to my TEDxLemmygrad talk. Proposal co-authored with a second mysterious tankie

Addendum: may be a good idea to also have one community for ultra-leftists separate from the one for general reactionaries.

  • Aria 🏳️‍⚧️🇧🇩
    15·
    2 years ago

    That’s what I’m saying, it will be weird if MLMs were suddenly considered reactionary out of nowhere. Though, I’m wondering, what about Anarchists? Do we put them in the Ultra category?

    • redtea
      14·
      2 years ago

      This isn’t just a response to you, Alunyanners, but it seems to fit here.

      Agree that we shouldn’t be alienating MLMs or other Marxists. If an ‘MLM’, ‘Trotskyist’, or ‘ML’ says something reactionary it could be posted in a ‘c/ShitReactionariesSay’.

      I’m tempted to suggest that we make clear to be criticising the ideas rather than the people, as criticising people might push people away who would otherwise be sympathetic and maybe become communists. But this might be a different issue and could result in tone policing.

      Still, I’d suggest being careful with ‘shit lemmy.ml says’ because it’s reactionary ideas, anywhere, that’s problematic, not Lemmy or its users per se. Merging the above communities solves this.

      As for the difference between reactionaries and people who claim to be communists, like Pat Socs, I can see the argument that they are different. But which is more abstract for the pretenders. Ultras or leftcoms? Or are they the same? And is the problem with ultras, patsocs, anarchists, etc, that they end up supporting capitalism and are therefore in the same camp as reactionaries? If so, one merged community might do. Or is it the additional danger of bastardising Marxism that’s a problem. If so, that might help us with the theme of a second ‘c/shitXXXXsay’.

        • Muad'DibberA
          41·
          2 years ago

          MLMs, like anarchists (and unlike MLs), don’t yet have a single victory. Since their tenets are

          • Dogmatic adherence to original marxist texts, calling everything else “revisionist”.
          • Opposition to all existing socialist states, and all other left groupings.
          • Belief in the universal applicability of specific revolutionary strategies, such as “peoples war”.
          • Rejection of local people as being too politically unenlightened.
          • Terrorist tactics: bombings, assassinations, etc.

          Most MLM’s may say, they oppose western imperialism, but by focusing their vitriol at most existing socialist states, they further the western agenda and strategy of promoting balkanization and disunity between socialist countries. MLM’s (and their progenitors in the unfortunate ultra-leftism of the cultural revolution) essentially want to re-create the sino-soviet split, which was a huge boon to western imperialism. Nowadays the leaders of the CPC, Russia, Syria, and other anti-imperialist countries, while being incredibly different politically, are rightfully not doing what MLM’s propose: to denounce everyone as “revisionist”.

          There’s nothing wrong with armed revolutionary activity of course, but MLMs have shown so far that the best way they think to carry this out, is via assassinations of community leaders, bombings, and massacres of peasants… literally the opposite of what people like Fidel and Mao advocated.